Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[king81992]

Because most of the time they're not killers. Idk why anyone wants superheroes to be so willing to kill

Because after a certain point, a hero who refuses to kill becomes part of the problem and not the solution. I'm not saying that every hero should kill all their rogues, but if a villain constantly goes out of their way to commit atrocities, the hero should put them down. Batman should have dealt with Joker a long time ago or let someone else who was willing do the deed if he can't stomach it.

[king81992]

Maybe controversial, maybe not but part of me thinks the amount of child/teen superheroes should be cut in half which is part of the reason I cant really get into Titans Academy.

Titans Academy kids are walking canon fodder at this point, the school gimmick exists to keep the Titans sidelined. None of the new characters introduced are interesting and the Red X mystery can't carry an entire book.

[king81992]

What's the story on Mars in the DCU these days. The YOUNG JUSTICE cartoon has Mars quite populated by multiple races of Martians, Pale, Verdans, and others. Is Jonn still the last Green Martian?

The comics aren't doing anything interesting with Mars right now.

[I'm a Fish]

I think its more the reaction to Max Lord that makes Clark look really bad after both the Doomsday and Zod scenarios in post-Crisis canon. The Doomsday scenario is justified, he just really shouldn't be giving Diana any **** after it. Or he should be consistent and give her **** for both Max AND Medusa and not just the former, even though he'd still be a hypocrite.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if Rucka had been able to write what he originally planned.

For anyone wondering what the original idea was for the "Wonder Woman neck snap" and "Amazons Attack":

This was the story that was supposed to happen after it was decided it was Max she was going to kill:

- After Wonder Woman kills Max, a detective is assigned to the case. He investigates the crime, finds Wonder Woman guilty, gets a warrant for her arrest and asks Superman to be there when he arrests her incase she resists. Superman is very reluctant about it, but ultimately agrees to it.

- They go to her house and knock on Diana's door. She's not surprised in the least to see the detective, since she was expecting him and willingly gets arrested.

- Politics ensue since she's the ambassador of Themyscira at the time, and the US Government pulls some barley legally BS to have her arrested in the first place. Basically, the US Government doesn't like the Amazon's because of their advanced technology and wants them gone. This is the reason to go to war with the Amazons in the first place and use Diana as an excuse to start the war.

- Diana is held on trial, found guilty and sentenced to death. Superman freaks out and rushes over to the Batcave to tell Bruce, who is neck deep in schematics of the super prison they are keeping Diana in. Clark tells Bruce they are planning to execute Diana, to which Bruce replies, "I know. And we're gonna bust her out."

- Sups and Bats stealthily break into the holding cell housing Diana, open the bars and say "C'mon, lets go". She doesn't budge and inch. When asked why she isn't coming, Diana says, "I have to face whatever consequences there are for my actions." Batman and Superman refuse to accept this, since it means her death and Diana replies, "You're going to half to accept it. Flawed though it is, I have submitted myself to this judgement. I can only hope that saner heads will prevail, but I wont run away from this."

- Bats and Sups reluctantly leave her in the prison. The newly restricted Hippolyta finds out though, and she's not happy at all. (He doesn't go into detail on how Hippolyta got arrested in this version.)

- The US military is ready to invade Themyscira, but the Amazons find out and begin an invasion of their own. The US government puts the President on Air Force One, and while in the air the plane is boarded by Artemis and eight other Amazons. They capture the plane and tell the President, "We have a fleet of invisible jets everywhere. Give us your unconditional surrender and nobody has to die." The president surrenders then and there, in the shortest war in human history...and that's Amazons Attack. (So it wasn't even an event it was like, 3 pages, lol)

- But the Amazon's don't want the US territory so they give it back right away, and just ask that the US not plan to invade again. Oh, and of course that Diana be released too.

-----

In the original original story, the guy who she kills was not supposed to be Max (probably an OC, though he doesn't specify). The plan of having Superman brainwashed wasn't brought in until it was decided Max was going to be the villain she kills.

Several years prior to the story being published, Rucka had given Didio and Johns a ruff outline of this. Didio and Johns in particular decided to retool this story, of Diana killing someone, as a way to fracture The Trinity and build up to Infinite Crisis.

Rucka was shoved off the book at the last minute, without being able to resolve it. And he agrees with the general consensus that the fallout of this story (or lack-there-of) is the reason this event sticks. Because there was no real conclusion.

[Jabare]

That's a fair point. Though, I think they are starting to dial back on that in live action. I mean, Dwayne Johnsons whole pitch for Black Adam is "heroes don't kill, but Black Adam does". Which leads me to believe they are planning on toning it down.

I guess will see what happens, but until then

[Agent Z]

Torture, assault, breaking and entering, trespassing, child endangerment, all fine.

But killing is always bad, no matter the circumstances.

DC couldn't forget about Batman trying to be a one man NSA and Superman covering up the League's human rights abuses quickly enough but Wonder Woman killing Max to prevent him causing World War 3 was something she deserved to be punished for despite it being far more defensible than what the other two did.

[Agent Z]

In some ways I felt having Diana kill but Superman and Batman not was a knock on Wonder Woman. Like Bruce and Clark had this moral high ground over her allowing her to do the dirty work while they kept their hands clean.

Although we are trending more and more to a Batman and Superman who kill. Despite comic purists protests that’s the direction it feels they are being pulled to in multimedia, because let’s face it in live action most of the heroes kill.

It's only used that way by writers who prefer the no killing rule or who clearly like Superman and Batman more (Waid admitted to this being the reason he wrote Diana the way he did in Kingdom Come).

[John Venus]

Maybe controversial, maybe not but part of me thinks the amount of child/teen superheroes should be cut in half which is part of the reason I cant really get into Titans Academy.

It's hard to get invested in newer legacy heroes when older legacy heroes are neglected or tossed aside. I want to like Yara but it's hard to look past the fact that Donna and Cassie never got a real shot at a WG title as part of the WW Family of the books and Yara got a book, tv show and a whole upcoming event centered around her.

Because after a certain point, a hero who refuses to kill becomes part of the problem and not the solution. I'm not saying that every hero should kill all their rogues, but if a villain constantly goes out of their way to commit atrocities, the hero should put them down. Batman should have dealt with Joker a long time ago or let someone else who was willing do the deed if he can't stomach it.

That's not a story that's ever going to have a resolution. In the real world, someone like Joker would have been executed by cop on the streets. And only in the comic book world are Black Adam and Cheshire still alive after committing nationwide genocide.

Writers are not going to kill off Joker, Darkseid or Luthor because they need them to come back over and over again to be used as villains.

'To kill or not to kill' stories are ultimately gimmicks. It's played out at this point and it's cheap. It's the junk food of story telling and any pathos that could be gained from it has long since emptied out. At this point I just roll my eyes at any story where Batman is asked why he doesn't kill his villains as if that plot line has any merit or depth anymore.

[mathew101281]

It's hard to get invested in newer legacy heroes when older legacy heroes are neglected or tossed aside. I want to like Yara but it's hard to look past the fact that Donna and Cassie never got a real shot at a WG title as part of the WW Family of the books and Yara got a book, tv show and a whole upcoming event centered around her.

It’s also hard to get invested with characters like that when you know their is a possibility that just like her predecessors she could easily be left in obscurity when a new creative team comes around. Say what you will about Damian Wayne but his presence is hard to ignore because his existence has such an effect on several major characters in the Batman universes. Their are three things that help a character stick around.

1. A cool or popular story. The characters origin story or most popular story is so rich with story potential that writers are constantly revisiting it. Sometimes to a fault.

2. A cool or popular design. Some characters are just fun to draw. These characters often stick around even if it’s just in the background because artists like to draw them. Powergirl was a character like this early on.

3. Characters have so much of an effect on the characters around them that getting rid of them would have a multitude of unpredictable effects on other characters and franchises as a whole. We saw this after crisis on infinite earths, when some characters were erased, and it caused a lot of confusion with other characters, thus even more confusing explanations had to be dreamed up to justify things.

[SiegePerilous02]

Torture, assault, breaking and entering, trespassing, child endangerment, all fine.

But killing is always bad, no matter the circumstances.

Who is saying torture and assault are fine?

If we want to shed a realistic light on the child endangerment stuff, we'd have to get rid of the sidekick trope altogether. Which would piss off several fans. We can't continue to make new sidekick characters while at the same time calling out the adult heroes for taking them in and endangering them, it's stupid for DC and fans to want to have it both ways.

That's not a story that's ever going to have a resolution. In the real world, someone like Joker would have been executed by cop on the streets. And only in the comic book world are Black Adam and Cheshire still alive after committing nationwide genocide.

Writers are not going to kill off Joker, Darkseid or Luthor because they need them to come back over and over again to be used as villains.

'To kill or not to kill' stories are ultimately gimmicks. It's played out at this point and it's cheap. It's the junk food of story telling and any pathos that could be gained from it has long since emptied out. At this point I just roll my eyes at any story where Batman is asked why he doesn't kill his villains as if that plot line has any merit or depth anymore.

At this point, death isn't even a permanent solution within the realm of DC comics. Even if Batman finally killed the Joker, the clown would just come back as a demon or something and make a bigger body count than ever.

Plus it's weird that people say Batman is already bad for the stuff he does but also want him to start killing his foes or lock them up in a gulag of his own making away from the law and Arkham because they can't be trusted to do it. So is Batman already going too far, or is the issue that he's not going far enough?

[Gaius]

https://twitter.com/AnneComics/statu...14204022251523

[SiegePerilous02]

https://twitter.com/AnneComics/statu...14204022251523

So accurate it's scary.

God if I was in charge, I'd veto any Trinity romance and conflict and bring the hammer down on any of these if they crept into a pitch.

[Ascended]

Because most of the time they're not killers. Idk why anyone wants superheroes to be so willing to kill

There's always been the "acceptable losses" argument, the idea that recurring villains eventually become such an issue that a hero not putting them down (or allowing others to do so) is increasing chaos and pain in the world, rather than reducing it. It's a logical and valid argument, but one too rooted in reality to fully apply to this genre, I think. Yes, lots of innocent people would be alive if someone had killed the Joker years ago and in the real world this would be seen as a massive failure of the justice system....but this is superheroes and the genre isn't built for that kind of thinking.

We've seen this kind of argument rise up more and more over the last couple decades, I believe, because of the extended duration of America's wars in the middle east. We've spent a generation watching our siblings, our parents, our spouses and friends, all go fight "evil" and we accept that they'll take lives while doing so. If it's okay to kill bin laden, then why isn't it okay for Batman to kill Joker?

We've come to view our superheroes as soldiers rather than first responders.

[Agent Z]

Who is saying torture and assault are fine?

DC, if only by implication (see the rest of that comment I posted). There have also been fans who have stated unironically that they don't have an issue with Batman torturing people as long he doesn't kill them.

Plus it's weird that people say Batman is already bad for the stuff he does but also want him to start killing his foes or lock them up in a gulag of his own making away from the law and Arkham because they can't be trusted to do it. So is Batman already going too far, or is the issue that he's not going far enough?

Compared to the crap he's pulled in the past decades, especially towards other heroes, Batman killing his foes would be the least objectionable thing he's done. If only because it would (hopefully) be limited to his villains as opposed to his friends and family.

There's always been the "acceptable losses" argument, the idea that recurring villains eventually become such an issue that a hero not putting them down (or allowing others to do so) is increasing chaos and pain in the world, rather than reducing it. It's a logical and valid argument, but one too rooted in reality to fully apply to this genre, I think. Yes, lots of innocent people would be alive if someone had killed the Joker years ago and in the real world this would be seen as a massive failure of the justice system....but this is superheroes and the genre isn't built for that kind of thinking.

We've seen this kind of argument rise up more and more over the last couple decades, I believe, because of the extended duration of America's wars in the middle east. We've spent a generation watching our siblings, our parents, our spouses and friends, all go fight "evil" and we accept that they'll take lives while doing so. If it's okay to kill bin laden, then why isn't it okay for Batman to kill Joker?

We've come to view our superheroes as soldiers rather than first responders.

It isn't an issue for the genre so much as an issue for DC comics. They can't kill off the Joker and other villains permanently because they know it will piss off fans. Adaptations have little problem with killing off villains because those are designed to end. Superhero movies have been killing off villains since Superman 2 and the MCU is still going strong despite killing off most of its villains.

[Robanker]

We've come to view our superheroes as soldiers rather than first responders.

This is the primary issue.

And yeah, they don't exist in the real world. Their universe has it's own parameters to operate by. The only reason nobody has just plugged the Joker while he was behind bars is because DC has a vested interest in him being alive. Same reason why every master marksman and assassin never just shoots Bruce in the mouth.

These characters are not and will never be realistic. They just gave to behave in a way that is reasonable given their world and characters.

Bruce is psychologically unable to process death by his hands. It absolutely ruins him. He just doesn't want to see anyone die. If you don't like that, well, Batman isn't for you. That's who he is.

But hey, "why doesn't anyone notice the glasses/kill the Joker/Arthur gave gills/etc?"

Because it's fantasy. Damn.